It was 90 degrees under a blazing sun when presidential candidate Michele Bachmann’s campaign bus drove into the landmark Beacon Drive-In restaurant parking lot in Spartanburg, South Carolina to the strains of Elvis Presley’s Promised Land1. A crowd of perhaps 300 supporters braved the heat to hear Bachmann’s 25-minute stump speech. I along with maybe a dozen press reporters were there to take pictures.
I suppose it was typical for a stump speech – filled with sound bites, but fuzzy on the details. There were two clear promises she made: the repeal of “Obamacare” in her first week as President and “there will be no teleprompters in the Bachmann White House.” Ending deficit spending is “easy,” just prioritize and cap spending.
The warmest reception from the crowd seemed to be for the repeal of “Obamacare,” but all of her points elicited applause including topics such as taxes being too high, creating jobs, support for religious liberty, support for Israel and opposition to: apologizing to other countries, abortion, assisted suicide, gay marriage and, most of all, making Barack Obama a ONE … TERM … PRESIDENT.
As The New Yorker article described, Bachmann touts her experience as a “former federal tax litigation attorney,” not mentioning she spent far more time with the St. Louis Paul I.R.S. office on maternity leave than she did litigating.
Bachmann used quite a bit of generalized language that I think everyone understood to refer to specific things. I wouldn’t accuse her of using “code words” except at one point when she mentioned that she sat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence and then said:
There is not a day that goes by, not a day that someone doesn’t wake up trying to figure out some way to kill people in the United States of America. It is sobering. And the second thing, the second thing that I know is that there isn’t a day that goes by that someone doesn’t wake up thinking how they can destroy the United States of America. Life changed 10 years ago on 911; it changed unfortunately forever. And as President of the United States I will assure you I will take off my politically correct glasses and look at the enemy and look at the threats that have faced the United States and take it on and call it out for what it is and hold to that challenge. [applause and cheers] And I will guarantee you that as President of the United States I will stand with our allies like Israel. And as President I would never call on Israel to draw back to indefensible 1967 boundaries. …
What politically incorrect thing is it that she is not saying? Given the strength of the applause and cheering at this point, I guess the crowd understood.
There was nothing even remotely hinting of “birther” in her speech, of which I have a recording, along with 150 photos.
1I suppose every Michele Bachmann appearance has to have an obligatory gaffe. After she greeted the crowd as Elvis Presley’s Promised Land was playing, she said “Let’s all say ‘Happy Birthday’ to Elvis Presley today! Happy Birthday. We played you a little bit of Promised Land when we pulled up. You can’t do better than Elvis Presley. We thought we’d celebrate his birthday as we get started celebrating Take Our Country Back Tour.”
August 16 is the 34th anniversary of Presley’s death, not his birth (January 8). The crowd cheered anyway.
Bachmann’s habits of mind concern me a lot, as she’s repeatedly shown herself ignorant in historical matters, but that hasn’t stopped her from boldly asserting her misperceptions to the world.
Placed the Concord where, in Emerson’s words, the shot was fired heard round the world, in the wrong state.
Said that FDR used the “Hoot-Smalley Act” to turn a recession into a full-scale depression, causing the American people to suffer for almost 10 years.
That the “recession” that FDR inherited was not as bad as the one Calvin Coolidge inherited.
Implied that the first five presidents of the United States violated the Constitution by going beyond what the founding document allowed in the gathering of the Census.
Now I assume that most everyone knows that the battle of Concord at the outset of the American Revolution took place in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire.
But here’s info regarding Bachmann’s other misstatements:
Herbert Hoover signed Smoot-Hawley, or Hawley-Smoot, into law almost three years before FDR took office. And how could FDR have turned a recession into a lingering depression, when the unemployment rate that he inherited 24 percent – dropped throughout his prewar years, except for a single year in which it spiked from about 14 percent to about 19 percent? The rate had dipped just under 10 percent when the U.S. entered World War II, less than nine year’s into FDR’s presidency.
Economic growth, meanwhile pushed the gross domestic product well above 50 percent higher than the last year of Hoover’s term.
It’s laughable to say that FDR inherited a better economic situation than Calvin Coolidge did. The year that Coolidge succeeded to the presidency upon the death of Warren Harding (1923) the unemployment rate was just over 3 percent! Remember that 24 percent FDR inherited?
http://www.blackwellreference.com/public/tocnode?id=g9781577180999_chunk_g978157718099920_ss1-26
Bachmann once asserted that the only question the Census is constitutionally empowered to ask is how many people are in your household.
But four of the first five presidents signed into law Census acts that required names, racial information, general information and age information. The fifth, Thomas Jefferson, oversaw the gathering of the first Census as secretary of state under George Washington.
Washington, it need be noted, presided over the Constitutional Convention that created the Census requirements, signed the first Census law – on March 1, 1790 – and presided over the gathering of the first census. So whom do I consider more credible on Census law, George Washington or Michele Bachmann?
Going by precedent, I can tell you whom the courts consider more credible.
“The construction placed upon the Constitution by the first (copyright) act of 1790 and the act of 1802, by the men who were contemporary with its formation, many of whom were members of the convention which framed it, is of itself entitled to very great weight, and when it is remembered that the rights thus established have not been disputed during a period of nearly a century, it is almost conclusive.” – Supreme Court opinion in BURROW-GILES LITHOGRAPHIC COMPANY V. SARONY, 111 U. S. 53 (1884)
As noted, The executive branch in 1790 was headed by the man who presided over the adoption of the Census requirements, and nearly half of the members of the upper chamber of the legislative branch had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention. That’s 11 of 24 Senators from 12 states; Rhode Island had not yet joined the union.
The problem with Bachman is that people created and harden habits over the course of a lifetime. So can we expect her casual regard for facts to change now that she’s on the downhill side of 55?
Also, her factual missteps furnish a clue that she’s not top drawer in the recruitment and direction of her staff. The evidence is that several of these errors were asserted on the floor of the House. She should have on staff someone who was a sterling history or political science graduate of a first-tier college or university who could vet her speeches before she delivers them. Such a staffer could protect her from herself.
I am so embarrassed……..
The NBC nightly news picked up the Backmann gaffe. Bachmann, NBC reported, “corrected herself” later in the day. I don’t suppose my tip to the local NBC affiliate had anything to do with it 😉
Almost certainly the footage of the gaffe came from the local station, WYFF.
What, and create a job for a college-educated liberal?
According to her followers her ignorance makes her MORE quallified, not less.
I’ll say what she skirted around: She will target Muslims to “protect” the country.
She reminds of the birthers posting here; one fact-free screed after another. That’s why they like her. They want someone to act on emotions, not facts.
Kathy Griffin bumped into Bachmann on an escalator, concerning gay rights, she asked Bachmann “were you born a bigot or did you just grow into it”, Bachmann replied “That’s a good question, I’ll have to back to you on that”
http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/08/kathy-griffin-asked-bachmann-were-you-born-a-bigot/
I carelessly read those call letters as WYFP.
Had to check to see if one existed and sure enough…
http://www.ontheradio.net/WYFP
I wouldn’t mind having one of their bumper stickers.
I also wouldn’t mind some of that 90 degree weather….and maybe a little rain.
Wile E. in E. Tx
I remember 90 degree weather in april. I have new gutters never used.
Randy in E.Tx
Excellent report and reporting!
Crazy of this caliber needs to be documented and shared as much as possible.
Thanks Doc!
Heh.
I reported the Elvis gaffe in my article published at 5:17 PM. It looks like a commenter at Politico (the first mention I can find) beat me by 2 minutes. If I had just hit send an hour before instead of transcribing all that other stuff, and sifting through 150 photos for the right one, I could have scooped them all.
I must admit that this bit of live reporting, a first for the site, was great fun and an incentive to do it again. BTW, I took the photo in the article (click to enlarge)
One detail that I did not report is that the index finger of Bachmann’s left hand is bandaged. One can only speculate what that is all about.
Just a correction — Bachmann was in the St. Paul, MN District Counsel office.
Thanks, Doc, for going to the rally and supporting a great American. Did you get any bumper stickers?
Are you saying Bachmann is a great American?
In Russia, it’s gotten to the point that, even if you hate their guts, the Putin/Mevdevev combo is the only rational electoral choice, all the others being nutcases who couldn’t govern a kindergarten class if they tried. Or you don’t vote.
So-called “third world countries” playing at being Potemkin democracy have known that for a long time, of course. Magicians who ask you to pick a card, any card, too. In all cases, there is no real choice.
I see that you’ve now reached the One-Party-State. Congratulations.
At least she hasn’t called for murdering government officials like Rick Perry has.
Yet.
I’m glad to hear that Ms. Bachmann lists support for Israel that high on her priority list. I understand politicians pandered to the Jewish vote in Brooklyn and Boca Raton, promising, for example, to move our embassy to Jerusalem, then reneging once elected. I now have learned of the importance of the Jewish vote in the South Carolina Republican primary.
And, for the record, I’ve been to Israel a number of times in my work. Indefensible borders are a meaningless concept in a country where an F18 can cross it at the narrowest spot in somewhat under 3 seconds. Something I’ve done. It doesn’t take that long to go lengthwise, either. It doesn’t matter where the borders are in an area that tight. It is, however, a good sound bite.
One detail that I did not report is that the index finger of Bachmann’s left hand is bandaged.
This is symbolic for psychological purposes.
She wants to show how lame the left is, how the right is stronger, etc.
Her almighty right hand probably attacked her left one.
Who knows? Paper cut?
This woman isn’t exactly precise at anything.
For all we know, she woke up in a drunken stupor, mistook her finger for an evil serpent and bit it off herself.
She has that rare combination of ego, hatred, self-righteousness and stupidity that is needed to even consider going up against Obama.
She thinks that current economic conditions can be cured easily, even going so far as using the word “just.”
She believes she can end “Obamacare” in five days too.
Yes I’m sure it’s all quite easy to start a war, cure an economic depression and take healthcare away from millions of people at the same time.
Germany did it once too if I recall my WWII history correctly.
I’m not one to defend Bachmann, but I will say the Elvis gaff was an honest one. If she really thought it was Elvis’ birthday, she gave it up for Elvis.
I think the birther issue will cause more trouble for Bachmann than for any of the other Republican candidates. She seems to be the birther’s candidate of choice and she has openly flirted with birtherism in the past. Orly Taitz has a photo of herself and Bachmann posted on her website. Bachmann has to figure out a way to maintain the support of crazy conspiracy theorist without looking like one herself.
They were passing out bumper stickers, but I didn’t take one. That reminds me of a story my Pastor told a decade or so ago. Some political operative came by the church with “voter guides” where the positions of various candidates were stated on various issues — only it was pretty obvious which way the voter was being “guided.” He asked the Pastor how many guides he needed and the Pastor said 500. He got the 500 guides and threw them into the trash. “Resist the Devil…”
I was singularly unimpressed by Bachmann’s speech. It was superficial and manipulative.
There was a funny moment early on where there was apparently a heckler (not loud enough for me to hear) close to Bachmann. She stopped and said something like “apparently there is someone else here who wants to speak, but I have the microphone. Perhaps he will get a microphone afterwards. But now, we’re having a conversation.”
I guess “conversation” means “I talk and you listen.”
It was just meaningless political pandering. Either her handlers who suggested the Elvis reference screwed up his birthday and his death or she didn’t listen to them and screwed it up herself. As his death was a very unpleasant one, its a real *ouch* of a gaffe, but nothing but a harmless failed gaffe resulting from a fairly typical political pandering stunt and which really has no connection to any of her political views. All it is really does is provide some more material for late night comedians and filler material on a slow news day.
You might have missed a chance to start a collection of political ephemera.
Some people pay big money for old campaign buttons and the like. See Collectible Political Campaign “Button” Fetches $15,100
“Politically incorrect” = the same hateful, bigoted trash as the good old days, but with the preface that you realize this isn’t politically correct, so you’re a brave hero instead of a bigoted jerk.
Michele Bachmann is not Barack Obama’s opponent in the 2012 presidential election. She won a poll which people paid $30 to vote. She won with 4,823 votes. Compare this to the 69 MILLION votes Barack Obama received in the actual 2008 election and the 59 MILLION that his opponent won.
President Obama’s opponent will be selected in a nominating convention a year from now. Your assertion that the American electorate has a choice between a nutcase and an incumbent they may not like very much is false.
Is it true that some of the voters were given the $30`by Bachman people to vote for her? If true then this has about as much validity as the open Presidential primaries in ’08 where Reps voted in the Dem primary in hopes of making a weaker Dem ticket.
Sef-As I understand it, there is a $30 fee to attend the event (they serve food). The candidates re-imburse the $30 to their supporters. The thing is meaningless.
Everybody remember who was leading the Republican field in April? The guy with the toupee, what was his name again?
Actually the reality is that the ballot cost 30$ a pop. If you wanted to vote in the “straw poll” you had to ante up 30 bux.
Bachmann purchased at least 4000 of those ballots and handed them out for free to her supporters, at a cost of 120,000
So as well as believing the Bill of rights is not really important, another platform issue for her is the right to purchase elections.
The Iowa Straw poll is not very significant (Romney won it in 2007, lost the Iowa caucus to Huckabee 6 months later and didn’t get the nomination). Romney didn’t even particate in this years poll.
As to the open primary, turn about is fair play. In 2012, President Obama will be virtually unopposed in the primaries, so Democrates will be able to vote in the Republican primaries and help pick the weakest candidate.
“There were two clear promises she made: the repeal of “Obamacare” in her first week as President and “there will be no teleprompters in the Bachmann White House.” Ending deficit spending is “easy,” just prioritize and cap spending.”
Is she stupid enough to believe she could single handedly repeal Obamacare?
Or is it her followers who are stupid enough to believe that she could?
I read that she purchased 6000 tickets and only 4823 of those voted for her.
Not virtually, actually.
I realize that but I was just making an allowance for Dennis Kucinich. LOL
Your lack of intelligence shows the more you post. She didn’t purchase an election … just a straw poll. Nothing new there … been going on for years. Too bad you aren’t as smart as her.
I’m smart enough to know the difference between someones birthday, and their funeral… and smart enough to know to check before opening my mouth about it.
A person with integrity wouldn’t have purchased 99% of their votes, even if it WAS just a fake poll. It was her first chance to show she was “different” than all the “old guard” she claims to be better than. This was her first chance to show to “common sense Americans” that she is different from the otehr “rinos” that you teabaggers are so fond of railing against.
And what did she do with this first chance? She bought votes like it was seniors day at walmart.
And you teabaggers are too stupid to see the rings in your nose that she’s leading you by.
I found it odd that Republicans complained the Health Care Reform bill was “rammed through” Congress without any Republican support, but when the election came around, Tea Party backed Christine O’Donnell sent mailers blasting Mike Castle (incumbent Republican Congressman from Delaware and her opponent in the primary) for cooperating with Democrats. The mailers said “When Nancy Pelosi wants a Republican, she goes for Mike Castle.”
Which is probably true. Castle had a reputation in Congress for being a moderate. It sickens me that cooperating was deemed to be a vice. Unless, apparently, that cooperation is Democrats yielding to Republicans.
The 2010 Delaware Senate race was my favorite election ever. Not just because it put my humble home state in the national spotlight for a few glorious months when the state Republicans nominated a walking punchline. I loved it because it was such a great example of the Tea Party shooting the Republicans in the foot. It had been assumed the race would be between Mike Castle (R) and Chris Coons (D). Chris Coons was lagging in the polls and it was agreed that he didn’t have a chance against Castle, who had decades of experience serving the people of Delaware as both our lone Congressman and as our governor. Then they nominated an unelectable dipshit like Christine O’Donnell, and Coons lept ahead of her in the polls by a double digit margin. And now he’s our senator until 2014.
I like him, and I liked Mike Castle. I might’ve voted for Castle in the general election.
The problem with the Teabaggers is that there is no possibility of cooperation. Their hatred of Obama and Democrats is so overwhelming, and their ignorance of the basics of economics and large-scale business so pervasive (combined with their ignorance of their ignorance), that the only thing they’ll settle for is “my way or the highway”.
They seem to have forgotton any semblance of the ideals of democracy.
It could be the best idea in the world, but if a Democrat proposes it, it’s Satan’s own work. Teabaggers would rather burn the country down than allow a Democrat to tighten a bolt on it.
The funny and sad thing here is that if you take away the unnecessary and (IMHO) undeserved insults in between what you two are saying to each other on the issue and tone down the animosity, you are basically both arguing a similar point on the same facts, where the only difference is your opinion of what you think of the process itself and personal views of the candidates.
Here are the main points I think you can both agree on:
– The Iowa Straw poll gets a lot of attention, but may have very little correlation to actual primary votes or rankings later on.
– The Iowa Straw poll is designed in a flawed manner, in which candidates are encouraged to take various actions to increase their “standing” and intentionally try to “stack” the votes in their favor – in addition to giving out reimbursements of the $30 fee, this includes methods of getting their supporters to that polling place and also the candidates paying huge amounts of money to vie for what they feel is the best table position at the event.
-Bachmann won the straw poll. Ron Paul came a close second and Tim Pawlenty a distant third, with the rest of the candidates trailing in further below. Most of the candidates all took similar actions to “win” their votes.
I think we can agree that the Iowa’s straw poll methods are not the best example of fair democracy in action and that they are weighted to encourage people to use a lot of money and connections to “influence” and “sway” votes their way.
I think we can all agree that the Iowa straw poll has unfortunately been operating that way for many, many cycles and that most participants who want to seriously compete in it really have no option but to use those tactics to compete. It is what it is. I suspect that many of the candidates wish they didn’t have to do the things they do or devote the time and resources that they do to compete in the Iowa Straw poll, but they also understand the perceived risk in viability they take if they don’t perform well in it or don’t compete in it at all. It is what it is. I don’t fault the candidates for their actions in that particular poll; I fault how it was designed and operates.
I think we can also agree that the primaries themselves operate very differently than the Iowa Straw Poll and a much better indicator of our democracy in proper action.
I can very much understand Daniel’s perspective that by having money involved in the ways it is applied in the straw poll, that pretty much is a system of “buying votes”. I also think Daniel made a good point in pointing out that people, such as Bachmann who pay the $30 fee for voters didn’t receive as many votes as they paid for…and therefore the investment doesn’t even match the purchase.
I also agree with JoyEagle that you shouldn’t really fault Bachmann for doing that in that particular venue, as she was definitely not the only one employing that strategy, nor is that strategy unusual, nor illegal for the Iowa Straw Poll and has been employed in that manner for many cycles. Heck, Pawlenty pretty much bought as many tickets for his voters as Bachman did…and he ended up with even less votes to show for it. So, I think it is safe to say that these payments are certainly no guarantee of winning someone’s vote and the return on investment seems pretty bad for the candidates themselves.
I don’t think there was any reason to attack Daniel’s intelligence in your response and that in the heat of the moment, you were unfairly and excessively lashing out at him in proportion to what he actually said.
Joyeagle, you have every right to personally vote for Bachmann and like/support her if you want just as Daniel has every right to feel the opposite about her.
G,
Thanks again for the thoughtful input. Very nicely put.
I admit, I did get personal in the heat of the moment … mostly from perceived “silly” posts Daniel was making in another thread at the same time (lizard open). And in belittling of the “tea partiers” … I was taking that personal too.
I apologize, Daniel.
You’re welcome. I’m very glad you come and post here, even though on many issues we have different tastes and opinions. What I appreciate is that you are capable of having an actual conversation and you’ve really had an impact in making me aware that sometimes my tone alone can cause someone reasonalble, such as yourself to tune out and miss what I’m saying, if it is perceived as offensive. Of course, that is always a two-way street and a challenge that we will all continually face.
I know you feel differently, but I do agree more with Daniel’s POV on the Tea Party… or at least the impact that they have had on our politics. I’m sure there are lots of good folks who are active Tea Party types (case in point – my own brother-in-law & sister-in-law as well as way too many people in the area where I live), but I often see a huge disconnect between their statements and their actions as well as between how they live or want to live and the rhetoric and polices that they push for. A well-intentioned person who is duped and acting out against their own best interests is still a big hazard and often, their misguided and usually highly biased actions can be really upsetting to me. That is just how I feel about the topic.
I really agreed with the points Daniel made in his most recent post, but I can see where you might be missing what he is saying by focusing instead on how he says it, so I’m going to repost but rephrase his points so that you might hear them better:
The general point of criticism here is that the Tea Party comes across extremely rigid and inflexible and intolerant of others and their views.
I remain unconvinced but in fairness, we shall have to wait and see.
I will stipulate in advance that Mitt Romney is not a nutcase, but Rick Perry reminds me of that guy on the DEAD ZONE.
Yes, we all have a habit of focusing on the how and not on the what. That is a good thing for advertisers and those who teach public speaking.
Here’s the best of all:
“I’m not only a lawyer, I have a postdoctorate degree in federal tax law from William and Mary,” she told Fox News’ Chris Wallace in June.
But there was one résumé item that was missing: a Ph.D. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when Bachmann traveled the state as an education activist, she went by “Dr. Michele Bachmann,” even though she had never obtained nor sought the advanced degree that’s a prerequisite for the title.
Read on: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/michele-bachmann-not-doctor-phd
Certainly a politician you can trust. Not one of the old elite, but rather one of the fake elite.
Speaking of Bachmann, the Tea Party is a religious movement at its core:
Next to being a Republican, the strongest predictor of being a Tea Party supporter today was a desire, back in 2006, to see religion play a prominent role in politics. And Tea Partiers continue to hold these views: they seek “deeply religious” elected officials, approve of religious leaders’ engaging in politics and want religion brought into political debates. The Tea Party’s generals may say their overriding concern is a smaller government, but not their rank and file, who are more concerned about putting God in government.
Read on: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/scott-galupo/2011/08/17/the-tea-party-is-a-religious-movement
One more note about Bachmann: Oral Roberts University is basically a highway rest area with accreditation.
A Christian Plot for Domination?
Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry aren’t just devout—both have deep ties to a fringe fundamentalist movement known as Dominionism, which says Christians should rule the world.
Read on: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html
At Governor Perry’s recent rally in Texas, there were frequent calls for the conversion of the Jews.
As I’m Catholic, I don’t need to worry.
Yet.
Bachmann was in town for her edu-ma-cation? I hadn’t bothered to look, but her attending ORU … let’s see, despite all the denial, she’s 55, so her undergrad years would have been mid-to-late 70s … yup, she was in the initial law class there (now why would a christian university want a law school then? hmmmmm…. to give give to wide-eyed theological timebombs? 😛 ), studied under Eidsmoe (holy keeee-rap!) … a contemporary of Anita Hill and christian revisionist / original intenter. Hell, the law school is named after Coburn’s daddy.
Why is it always so unpredictably predictable?
The only winner here may be ORU itself. After a series of scandals, a more levelheaded alum basically bought the place a few years back and cleaned house. It’s becoming somewhat more respectable. The Jetson-esque architecture is still a crackup. I don’t know if the ultra-hokey life-of-Oral diorama is still in operation, (appropriately set up in the basement!), but it’s definitely worth the trip. Across town.
Why am I not surprised? They love Israel, but hate Judaism and Jewish culture.
There will never be peace in the Middle East. Evangelicals finance Israeli politicians’ campaigns, and they fund the Settlers.
No turmoil, no Armageddon. I’ve written before that a minister in the Anchorage AoG said to me, “Auschwitz was divine retribution because you people have refused to accept God’s only son.”
I told him my best friend in college was Ukrainian Catholic, and his mother survived Auschwitz. Her parents and sister were shot by the SS in front of her. Guess what that minister said? “That’s impossible. It was only Jews.”
They fund Jews For Jesus. JFJ are nothing more than latter day concentration camp capos.
Every time I am approached by someone from JFJ, I ask for their address. When they ask why, I say so I can mail them a canister of Zyklon B.
My degree, English/photography double major, is from a Jesuit college. I am well educated because of the Jesuits. I cannot say enough good things about them.
One student went around with a button that said “Jesus is the answer.” A professor looked at her and said, “what’s the question?”
Another student told a Jesuit she knew she was going to heaven. The professor said, “how do you know heaven exists? Did you ever get a postcard?”
And once upon a time a pretty good basketball team.
Yeh, those “DEEP TIES” are about equivalent to Obama trying to implement Black liberation theology from the white house, or JFK being a pawn for the vatican or Romney trying to take America for the Mormon church … fear based paranoia similar to birtherism.
Actually, the criticism of Bachmann being linked to Dominoism is a valid one currently being debated and the particular evangelical form of Lutheranism she practiced holds some fairly extreme and/or controversial stances on certain issues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#Religion
Her own campaign strategy was to distance herself from her church for this very reason. Is this similar to Obama breaking ties with his Church due to Rev Wright? Time will tell. One difference is that Bachmann has spent a good portion of her political career at the state and federal levels specifically talking about and pushing for religious policy positions which are very much inline with the church she just left.
I have yet to see any evidence that she intends to soften her position on any of those issues and therefore the issue of her Church affiliation is a much bigger one in this case – as it seems to be a focus of her politics and agenda; whereas there seems to be little or no connection between any of Obama’s political actions and his former Church. Like many, Obama talks of his religion merely as a source of faith, inspiration, strength and compassion; but not in any context of pushing particular religious dogma into government policy.
With Bachmann, Perry and Santorum it seems fairly clear that they would prefer to turn America into their personal version of a Theocracy if they could.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015442/Michele-Bachmann-leaves-Salem-Lutheran-Church-criticised-Catholics.html
Rick Perry has been one of the most vocal in pushing his religion in his politics in recent years. I take him at his word that those are his current beliefs, although other long-term followers of his career suspect much of his open pandering to the religious right is a cynical ploy. Beyond religious positions he’s been pushing, the issue has come up, particularly with his recent Prayer Day event, with the specific preachers he chooses to associate with; many of whom have had controversial statements.
Joe Arpaio is possibly getting into the birther act:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/08/maricopa-county-sheriff-joe-arpaio-to.html
I would like to believe that Joe was just tapdancing for his local Tea Party, but since Corsi was there, it must have been prearranged. However, I still expect it’s yet another empty promise; a crumb intended to excite the faithful, intended to be quietly forgotten like so many in the past. The FBI filings. The name dropping. The sequels. Many others I have obligingly forgotten but that are still out there on the interwebs for our reference.
I’m amused by the part at the end of the story, in which Arpaio says he is waiting for various information / materials from Corsi. Again, the implication that there is secret, damning information out there! Dum-dum-dum!
….Doc, I apologize, I thought I was still on the open thread (re: Arpaio)! Please forgive.
I’ll check the Obama Conspiracy Theories Revised Statutes and see if a crime has been committed that warrants investigation.
That I was posting here while you were posting about the Arpaio Show condemns me all the more. O me of little faith. Should have posted about it last night when the story “broke”.
Speaking of, WND seems to upload their new pages at midnight, indicting automation (those poor, working-from-home-in-hopes-of-a-paying-gig temps) … and yet they label these stories “BREAKING!” Seems “breaking” news would be more urgent. Start with a stub, add to it as story develops. Nothing is ever updated there. How is this a news organization again? The more I learn, the sadder the organization appears. Low-tech. Inefficient. Quaint!
Bachmann and Santorum signed a pledge which stated “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
Only that is a fairy tale. Most slaves’ children were sold from their parents at auctions. And slaves were not allowed to marry unless the master approved. Even then, couples were torn apart when one or both were sold and sent to different states.
Dominionism also holds that slavery was a benevolent institution.
Yes, I know that clause has been removed, but it was included when Bachmann and Santorum signed.
But back to Bachmann, there’s pleny of wacky material out there, Wonkette has several doozies. Extremely biased and irreverent, but interesting to follow up on.
Remember, Bachmann’s theology holds that the Pope is the anti-Christ.
That is factually incorrect. John Hagee and Jerry Falwell, among others, have flatly stated the anti-Christ will be a Jewish male.
It’s true. I am the anti-Christ. Muhwahahahahahaahahahaha…
They’re waiting for a Jewish Pope? Where’s my copy of Late Great Planet Earth?
Hal Lindsey was such a hoot.
The 70s Jesus Freaks have come home to roost?
Mel Gibson’s father, Hutton Gibson, has said the Pope is Jewish. Hold on, I fell off my chair laughing.
No less biased than Bachmann or Perry and their ilk.
Israel is 13 miles wide at that spot.
Oh believe me I agree Misha! Perry and Bachmann are hard at work digging in deeper everyday in very public ways. Just noting the character of the site for any that haven’t been there before, as its tone differs from considerably from OCT!
What’s the difference between Michele Bachmann and a reptile?
One is hatched from eggs, eats insects and sleeps under a rock.
The other is a reptile.
Sorry. I don’t get it. Which one is which?
What’s the difference between Uganda and the Republican Party?
One is backwards, corrupt, full of ignorant suspicions and prejudices, run by insane people focusing on all the wrong things.
The other is Uganda.
G,
I have several problems with your points in this post.
You want to get into the specifics of every teaching of a church Bachmann has been involved in and assign them as deep motivation for her … no candidate stands up to that scrutiny, not by any means President Obama.
Why do you suggest her campaign strategy was to distance herself from her church … because some left-leaning media spin says so. I don’t mean to insult you, but that is on par with me believing I know Obama’s motivation because of something wnd posted. I take her own word for the why and when vice a political opponent reading her heart:
The aide, who asked not to be identified, says her husband, Marcus Bachmann ran into the pastor from Salem Lutheran Church at an event last month. During the coincidental encounter, the pastor inquired about how he had not seen the Bachmann family at church for a good period of time. Marcus Bachmann explained that they were attending a non-denominational evangelical church the last few years. During the conversation, he told him it would be best for them to no longer be members. Thus, it turns out Bachmann didn’t seek the pastor out. Rather this was a chance meeting. The aide explains it this way:
“The family began seeking out a new church a little over two years ago, just after they moved. It really came down to preference issues, as it does for so many evangelical families who occasionally change churches. They have been attending a non-denominational evangelical church during that time. They haven’t been at Salem in just over two years. A coincidental meeting with Salem’s pastor last month afforded an opportunity to provide the membership release.”
As for her old churches “extreme and controversial” stance, it is really a traditional protestant stance that is not so “out there” … a theological difference of opinion :
There are two common views of the antichrist. Some Christians believe that the antichrist is a particular, Satan-driven end-times person. This is not the view of the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. They hold to Luther’s 500-year-old view that when the office of the papacy functions in the place of Christ (speaking for God or acting as a mediator that only Christ can be), then it is against Christ.
You say, “One difference is that Bachmann has spent a good portion of her political career at the state and federal levels specifically talking about and pushing for religious policy positions which are very much inline with the church she just left.” So, as opposed to a more “sane” person who pushes positions opposing their church (like good liberals Kerry/Reid)? I can’t speak for her, but her church’s position is not a factor in her decision on a policy … any more than Reagan would query the Presbyterian church prior to making a policy decision (not). But rather the decision is based on what is constitutional, good, right and legal. Her moral foundations and framework will certainly weigh into that as it would for any religious person, unless their religion is a sham to them. That seems to be the only allowance for religion many progressives would have–agnostic, atheist or pretender–those are the only kind they like. It is hard to argue that stance from America’s roots … but alas most progressives want to depart from our roots to something different. But back on point : any religion/denomination picked apart can be found to have “controversial extreme stances” to the majority. It doesn’t really matter.
Where exactly, what legislation, what evidence do you have that Michelle Bachmann has been “pushing particular religious dogma into government policy” as you suggest?
I’ve heard from several of you that Roe V Wade … abortion stance … is your evidence of her’s and other’s religious zealotry. OK … what does that have to do with Wisconsin Lutheran? Over 50% of Americans think abortions should be illegal. It is not because they all belong to the same denomination. It is because they consider the child to have life–protected under the constitution.
A presidential candidate once said in a debate (I think early primaries for 2000 election) when asked by a moderator why he thought he could “legislate morality”. He responded that it was a stupid question (offending the moderator) because all law is about morality. We don’t allow men to take little boy sex slaves in their homes because it is against our societal moral norms (but we do secure the “right” for the Afghans to do that). Is that pushing a religious dogma in government?
You say, “Bachmann, Perry and Santorum it seems fairly clear that they would prefer to turn America into their personal version of a Theocracy if they could.” It SEEMs. Sure, if you listen to the fear pandering left-leaning media. Once again, that is similar to it seems Barack Obama is not who he says he is, and is trying to destroy America from the inside out. It WOULD seem that way if you only read WND for your news source. Bachmann, Perry and Santorum have no different view of government and religion’s role than the founding fathers. The founding fathers did not pursue a secularized, “keep God out of view”, type society/government like the French. Rather they were sure our nation would not stand without a strong moral and religious foundation. We can argue til your blue in the face about who is revising early American history, but the facts and the words of the early leaders stand for themselves to the objective viewer. They weren’t anti-Christian like modern progressives, they were just against the state establishing a national religion/denomination.
I’ve already said I’m not a big Rick Perry fan, but how in the world do you substantiate, “Rick Perry has been one of the most vocal in pushing his religion in his politics in recent years.” To have a clear voice about your religious beliefs … even a public voice … does not mean you are pushing religion in politics. I was proud that no matter how the media dogged him about the prayer function, he stuck to his guns and didn’t back down. He didn’t let the media dictate who was “acceptable” in their theology or not to associate with. Just because you have thousands of denominations and organizations participating in prayer for America event, you shouldn’t have to defend everyone of their individual specific elements of their doctrines or statements to stand together and pray for the nation. To suggest that is similar to making Obama explain all of Farrakhan’s extreme stances (since Farrakhan was often honored in his church). To suggest that Rick Perry should not choose to associate with “controversial voices” is a little insincere thing to suggest from an Obama supporter 😉
JoyEagle, I still don’t get why you consider Bachmann a “great American.” True greatness is based on great achievements, measured by history. Any possible greatness of Bachmann’s part must lie in the future, if at all. She has a remarkably thin record of legislative accomplishments in the years she has served,
Also, she seems to have a very murky view of history, and she’s on the downhill side of 55, so when’s she gonna learn what she failed to learn in her first half century of life?
Do you trust someone to make the correct policy decisions if they don’t have a clear understanding of the facts undergirding policy?
JD, Thanks. I assume you are an Obama supporter? Michelle Bachmann’s achievement’s at this point are greater than Obama’s in ’07. Only he had already written 2 autobiographies. She is a great American because she has stood firm on principle when others blow with the political winds and polls. Her principles are what has made America great and will keep America great. Not too many legistlatures of the minority party has significant “legislative” accomplishments … can you name Senator Obama’s legislative accomplishments?
Her view of history is not murky or lacking in understanding. I can only surmise you only have that fear of her because of your opposing view of government/American foundations/etc. … just like a birther fears Obama’s lack of American understanding because of his “wildly radical socialistic” policies.
I appreciate most of you not preferring M. Bachmann … she doesn’t match your view of the world and the way America should progress. Great. What I find absolutely fascinating is the degree to which you all (those posting accusations on here about her) will believe the silly suggestions of her wanting to set up a Theocracy etc … so similar to birther fears of Obama (wanting to set up a communist dictatorship).
That’s not quite correct. Obviously, the Roman Catholic Church was deeply intertwined with the French Monarchy, and when the French Revolution came, payback was a bitch.
Interestingly, the Revolution did not go after or persecute the Jews, and while some of its leaders were themselves atheists, it recognized that a religious and/or moral foundation was essential for society and fostered the cult of the “Supreme Being” as a replacement.
After the French Revolution, Napoleon came and, recognizing he could extirpate the Catholic Church from French society, he signed a treaty (the Concordat) with the Vatican, restoring its assets, recognizing its right to exist, subsidizing it to some degree, but in a clear separation of Church & State system.
JoyEagle, you reming me of what one of my brothers said about my mother when she meted out swift punishment based on suspicion only rather than proof. “She doesn’t jump to conslcusions, she pole vaults to conclusions” You made several conjectures about me with a total lack of evidence. I never even mentioned Obama, much less asserting he is a great American. He’s not, baed on his record to date.
Merely standing up for your principles does NOT a great American,make, at least in the commonly understood meaning of the term. You have to ACCOMPLISH something great,
as viewed against the long sweep of history, and last I checked, Bachmann hasn’t come close.
You mentioned my statement that her understanding of history is murky, but you didn’t really confront it. Instead you went off on a tangent asserting that I and others fear Bachmann. Despite what she’s said about Revolutionary War history, economic history of the ’20s and ’30s, and about the Census, do you dispute my assertion that her view of history is murky, at least in what she’s shown to the public?
You surmise that I “fear” Bachmann. Well, I would if I thought there was a real possibility she might actually get elected. I don’t, because I believe mainstream Republicans still have enough influence that they will make sure someone more sensible is nominated.
You are right … I made a wide swath response to many of the comments on here, but used your post/quote to respond … so the response wasn’t directed all at you–obviously it came out as conjectures about you. I apologize for misrepresenting you.
Thanks for acknowledging that Obama has no more grounds for greatness than Bachmann (pre-presidency … I can see the argument for a progressive to be enthused about his Obamacare).
Let me expand too, on why I think Michelle Bachmann is a great American … I really do … but not because of the politics. I think the greatness of our country comes from people who work hard and succeed and help multitudes along the way–not just those who get credit in the media. I consider her education while raising a large family greatness. I consider her foster parenting greatness. And I consider her taking on the Republican establishment … in a very chauvinistic society … and succeeding great. Maybe not one of the top 10 great Americans of all time … but one of the top million of our day. I consider her a great American for wanting the presidency … I certainly wouldn’t.
OK … does she REALLY have Revolutionary war history issues, or did she mistake concord NH for concord Massachusetts? I don’t consider that significant (more than 57 American states). The census question is merely a reading of the constitution, and opinion … and a who cares. No I don’t think a “murky view of history” is fair. I think she is on the campaign trail and speaks a lot extemporaneously, and says stuff. No differently than any other campaigner, but the sexist bias of the media latches on to hers and makes a bigger deal of it … since you asked.
Youy really think Obama thought there were 57 states? A slip of the tongue when he tried to dial back from 50 to say 47, and neglected to insert the 40.But it’s obvious Bachmann did believe Concord, N.H., was where the great battle occurred. For someone who claimed to so revere the founding area and the founders, this casts a little bit of a doubt. As for the Census, as I’ve said in another post, the opinions of the founders and those of the founding generation are due far more credibility than those of anyone who came along decades later, as regarding the meaning of the constitution. So said the Supreme Court about 130 years ago.
And one of her most egregious misstatements of history was said, not on the campaign trail, but from the floor of the House regarding history of the Great Depression. Making such mistakes cast doubt on her managerial ability; she should have on staff a crackerjack aide to vet her speeches before she delivers, and has the confidence to say, “Uh, boss, this is the way it really was…”
Actually, there *were* 57 Primary & Caucus events on the Democratic side of the 2008 Primary Season. This includes DC, the territories & the Democrats at Large contest.
The statement he made was during the 2008 Primary contest season. He was correct in mentioning 57 contests. His only slip was a minor one, by mistakingly saying the word “states”.
As a candidate, he could obtain delegates from each of the 57 primary contest events. Therefore, 57 was a valid & important number for a candidate to focus on…
OK, you and I are in near agreement now … no, I don’t think he thought there were 57 states … it is just a very well known slip of the tongue that he gets lots of grief for. I expect that of anyone who talks a lot.
But I think they are inconsequential and evidence of a media that hypes the inconsequential and ignores the important. Like spending so much time discussing the Elvis birthday vs death day thing–WHO CARES.
I agree, she should probably have a staffer to vet stuff before dedicated speeches like the floor comment.
But overall, I don’t think anyone has proven her to have seriously murky history issues or a lack of intelligence. It is just a PR thing. The issues are the important thing. Those arguing whether or not no debt ceiling increase should have been raised have a more legitimate point. Thats all.
Wow … I’ve never heard anyone “legitimize” his mispeak here before. Very interesting and believable … but like I said, I don’t think anyone changed their opinion of him on this mispeak.
Any thought/response to my previous response to you?
It’s a grand old American political tradition for the political opposition to jump on any and every misstatement any national politician may make. It used to be “Bush-isms” and you are obviously a big fan of Obama-isms!
My personal favorite Bushism: “We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease.” –Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001
Michele Bachmann: Beware ‘the Soviet Union’
“What people recognize is that there’s a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward,” Bachmann said on conservative activist Jay Sekulow’s show.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-bachmann-soviet-20110819,0,7989785.story
The Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1989. Someone should tell her.
Bachmann is just like Palin: a poorly read, parochial, stupid, shallow shiksa.
I agree that everyone makes slips of the tongue, I have no problem with the Elvis thing. But i am concerned about her take on slavery. First, was the comment on the founders doing everything in their power to end slavery. Then she signed the pledge that said African American children were better off in slave days (her claim that she didn’t read that part of the pledge makes her look slipshod). And she called “Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee” by J. Steven Wilkins a “must read”. Even though it claims slaves and slave owners viewed each other with “mutual respect”.
It does call into question her judgement.
Well, there are some politicians who will stand by their -isms.
We can all be assured that the American political tradition of misstatements will continue far into the future.
Here are my favorite:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
“There are some who feel like that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is bring them on.”
And some from Dan Quayle:
– “The destruction, it is just very heart-rendering.”
– “I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior, for whose Kingdom it stands, one Savior, crucified, risen, and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe”
– “The future will be better tomorrow.”
– “My friends, no matter how rough the road may be, we can and we will, never, never surrender to what is right.”
– “If we don’t succeed we run the risk of failure.”
– “It isn’t pollution that’s harming the environment. It’s the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.”
– “I have made good judgements in the past. I have made good judgements in the future.”
Well, let’s see. In addition to the Concord gaffe, she also blamed “FDR’s Hoot-Smalley [sic] Tariffs” for the Great Depression. The Smoot-Hawley Tariffs were passed in 1930 and were signed into law by Herbert Hoover. Shouldn’t a Presidential candidate know that?
She said that the swine flu outbreak of 1976 occurred during the Carter Administration. Shouldn’t a Presidential candidate know that Gerald Ford was President in 1976?
She apparently believes that the Soviet Union is still a threat to the U.S. The Soviet Union hasn’t existed since 1989. Shouldn’t a candidate for President know that?
She claimed that John Quincy Adams was a Founding Father. John Quincy Adams was eight years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed. He was a freshman in college when the Constitution was ratified. Shouldn’t a Presidential candidate know that?
Also, please provide support for your claim that “Over 50% of Americans think abortions should be illegal.” One of the problems that we have with birthers is their tendency to pull “facts” out of their asses. In fact, all recent national polls support the right of women to have abortions in most cases.
http://pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
The percentage of Americans who believe that abortion should be outlawed in all cases generally runs below 20%.
My mother, alav hashalom, told me this story:
In 1930, my mother was 18. A neighbor went to bed with her boyfriend and became pregnant. When she told her father, he hit her, called her a tramp, said he would disown her, and locked her out of the house.
She went to my mother, begging for help. Her father was a rabbi turned bootlegger, so my mother had money. My mother scraped $100 together ($1,352 in constant dollars), and gave it to her friend. The neighbor had an abortion in NYC, and she was butchered.
My mother said she would not tell me who it was, because my mother still saw her at our synagogue.
My aunt was a social worker for Child and Family Services. She told me the worst cases were incest. Once Roe became law, she could obtain an abortion for the child, and get her into protective custody. Before Roe, she sometimes arranged for the child to be taken to Toronto, where some doctors would abort, and then into protective custody.
Do not forget Dr. Slepian, whom I knew. http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/summer/anti-abortion-violence
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Slepian
I claim this post as broadly on topic due to the somewhat, sort-of, implication that we are talking about ‘fanaticism’ here. If you disagree Doc, feel free to move it to off-topic.
I direct it at Misha because he seems to have a lot in common, ideologically, with the speaker, Amos Oz (feel free to abuse me if I got that wrong).
I had not heard of him till this morning when this speech was broadcast on Australia’s Radio National. I think he has some very lucid comments about what drives fanaticism of what ever flavor.
Radio National Background Briefing Program podcast:
Amos Oz on fanaticism
A combined illegal in most (or worded only legal in a few circumstances) and always illegal comes out to a whopping 60%, so I stand corrected. 51% “pro-life”.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
Your poll is from May of 2009, over 2 years ago. ABC/Washington Post poll July 14-17, 2011 asked the same question found that only 45% of people believed that Abortion should “illegal in most cases” or “illegal in all cases”. The margin of error in the poll is 3.5%, so even with the error, it still doesn’t equal a majority. 54% of people believed that it should be legal in most cases, or legal in all cases.
A Time poll showed that 64% agreed (strongly, or somewhat) with the statement that “A woman should have the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy in the first few months of her pregnancy.”
CNN/Opinion Research (April, 2011) poll showed that 65% of Americans believed that Congress should not cut funding from Planned Parenthood.
A Pew Research Poll (March 2011) showed 54% of people either thought that Abortion should be legal in most cases, or legal in all cases.
You’re using a 2-year-old poll…
These polls are out this year, and yet they show the opposite of what you actually think.
You birthers are truly obtuse and dishonest.. As dunstvangeet pointed out, you cited a poll from May, 2009. Check your calendar. This is 2011.
That said, the same poll showed that only 22% of Americans favored outlawing abortion under any circumstances. And since the poll doesn’t define what circumstances the “middle group” was thinking of, it is impossible to draw any definitive conclusions about it. As the Gallup analysis says, “Still, the dominant position on this question remains the middle option, as it has continuously since 1975.” 53% said that abortion should be legal under certain circumstances and 23% said that it should be legal under all circumstances. That adds up to 76%.
When I was in Israel, I listened all the time to Abie Nathan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abie_Nathan
Here’s a link to where folks can read a number of different most recent (2011) pro-life/pro-choice polling data: http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
And I am happy to have this dialogue and respond. There were a lot of points you made, so I’ll have to break this up into several posts in order to reply.
Well, I can see you are starting off from a point of reading into what I said with way more than I ever actually did. What you ascribe in your opening statement here is quite a hyperbolic exaggeration and goes way beyond anything I actually said. Careful, when you immediately react emotionally and ascribe way more than what is there, you just create a straw man. At this point, you are no longer even having a conversation with me, but just coming up with an argument yourself. There’s no point in me adding any further response to this particular statement, as it is never a claim I made in the first place. So, let’s move on.
Well, I’d be happy to answer your question in a minute, but first I have to address that yes, your dismissive “left-leaning media spin” quip sounds insulting. I assume you are referring to the article I linked to from “dailymail.co.uk”. I don’t happen to know that paper’s leanings one way or the other, but the article was pretty much balanced and standard journalism reporting on her leaving the church. Unless you can specifically tell me what you have problems with in that article, I think you are simply being arrogantly dismissive for dismissive sake and trying to bogeyman my words into something they are not and not at all having an honest discussion. So yeah, that is a bit condescending and insulting of you to casually throw in cheap glib smears instead of addressing any specific points in an article that you took issue with.
To compare any actual legitimate news source or journalism with a hack amateur propaganda rag such as WND is an outrageous and over-the-top comparison.
I simply chose that one source that reported on it, because the article covered the issue. If for whatever reason you don’t like that, here’s 2 others. There are many more. The topic was widely covered, because we’re dealing with a Presidential Campaign and such things as changing one’s church affiliation when a campaign starts always make news.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/15/michele-bachmann-officially-leaves-her-church/
http://www.christianpost.com/news/michele-bachmann-leaves-church-gets-catholic-support-52384/
Look. Here are the simple facts:
She was a member of that church for 10 years.
She was barely at that church over the past 2 years.
She did tout her membership at that church during her 2006 campaign.
She did officially quit her church just weeks before her “official” candidacy announcement.
She is now attending a non-denominational church and not another church within the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.
On this simple issue of people leaving one church for another, there isn’t anything unusual about that. It also isn’t that unusual for a candidate to change their church affiliation early on in a major political campaign.
Whether or not her “motivations” for quitting that particular church at that particular time were “coincidence” as you want to call it, or a fairly standard, cynical political maneuver of her campaign is a valid debate and question. I fully respect your wanting to view it as coincidence. There is nothing wrong, nor sinister with my suspecting it as a typical campaign tactic to merely attempt to remove potentially controversial topics from a campaign’s path forward. I don’t have any negative judgment about towards her or her campaign on the question of if this is merely a campaign tactic. I don’t consider such actions unusual or atypical in such prominent campaigns, nor do I fault a campaign for doing so.
I would suspect that her very experienced and talented campaign manager, Ed Rollins, would most likely be behind suggesting and pushing for such a move and I highly doubt she would have come up with doing that on her own, but I freely admit that is just my own suspicions and opinion of what happened and openly categorize such as mere informed speculation.
As the Christian Post points out, “Michele Bachmann has received a much-needed endorsement from Catholics following media reports saying she quit her Lutheran church, which believes the Pope is the Antichrist.”
Therefore, intentional campaign tactic or not, it sure provides a benefit to her campaign. I don’t have a problem with that at all. What I think you misunderstand is that if my suspicions of a campaign tactic is correct, that I view it as a smart and effective tactic and am not attacking her for doing so.
Do I still think her personal views are more in line with the teachings of her former church? Yes. I openly suspect that. Do I know if she agreed with every viewpoint held and taught at the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod? No, I certainly do not. I will judge her on her own statements and positions that she takes or advocates. However, I think it is perfectly reasonable for her to be asked about her beliefs and where her personal positions may differ from what is openly advocated by the place she worships at, particularly because she regularly invokes her faith as motivation.
The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod *is* a particular splinter group of the Lutheran faith. They hold positions that differ and are more fundamentalist than the mainline Lutheran churches. That is just a simple fact.
They don’t *just* believe in an Antichrist, they do directly point the finger at Catholics. That *is* considered a more extreme and certainly not mainline position and *is* something that would be a valid concern and offense to Catholics and others that respect religious tolerance and freedom. Per the article link in the CNN religion blogs:
Full disclosure: I come from a highly Catholic background. Both sides of my family, going back for generations. Where I generally live and grew up, Roman Catholic is the predominant faith. Yes, it is highly concerning and offensive for Catholics to hear statements and beliefs such as that.
Although I recognize and appreciate your explanation of how you categorize that they simply take Martin Luther’s view in criticizing the Papacy’s role as a mediator (a position for which I agree is a legitimate point of criticism), there is a huge difference between criticism and charges of the “Antichrist”; a term that pretty much seems to always really reference a “Satan-driven end-times person” in fundamentalist Christianity.
If you have any actual evidence or links that you can provide that shows that these fundamentalist Wisconsin Synod Lutherans define “Antichrist” as you claim instead of the more common fundamentalist meaning of the term, I’m open to listening and learning. I’d welcome proof that they are not really as bigoted against Catholics as it sounds…
Finally, it is important to point out that the whole “end-times” and “Antichrist” stuff is only taken seriously by a certain segment of Christians, usually within the more conservative and fundamentalist sects. The rest of Christianity doesn’t view that stuff as literal prophecy, and treats it mostly as metaphor. Finally, for the rest of the non-Christian world, the whole Antichrist/End-Times stuff sounds even nuttier. So yes, the mere belief in that kind of stuff is seen as a non-mainstream view in the broader whole.
I assume you are specifically referencing abortion here in alluding to Kerry/Reid. Look, we are NOT a theocracy and our government is a secular structure. Kerry & Reid can be personally against abortion all they want in accordance with their faith and their churches. However, they cannot impose their personal religious views as law onto society as a whole. I personally found it inappropriate and overreaching of the churches to try to impose their view onto the political structure and threaten to punish politicians for not legislating and governing according to a particular church’s doctrine.
Again, our government is a secular institution, meant to represent ALL people and designed to NOT subscribe to any particular faith over another. You seem to advocate for a theocracy, one that conforms to your particular views of faith.
There is no doubt that the predominant faith within the US since the time of its founding has been Christianity as a whole. However, there is a very wide and diverse set of beliefs and values held within Christianity, which is why there are so, so many splinter sects; particularly amongst the Protestant denominations. Even within Catholicism, there is a wide array of disagreement and yes, despite the Papal hierarchy of Roman Catholicism, there are many cases of where the lay people or even clergy do not agree with every edict or view that comes from the Papacy.
When it comes down to it, the reality is that there are a lot of people who worship and attend a particular congregation but do not personally subscribe to every viewpoint expressed by that institution. One could reasonably argue that maybe these folks should find a different place of worship more in tune with their personal beliefs – and quite a few do… but many simply stay out of tradition or because they are comfortable with supporting a certain percentage of their faiths positions and don’t need to adhere to all of them. But that is just a reality of human nature, cultural tradition and personal choice.
The bottom line is that when you take political office, you swear an oath to the Constitution and to serve ALL your constituents, not just those of the same faith as yourself. There is a big difference between one’s personal faith guiding their decisions and wanting to impose one’s personal faith on everyone. You seem to demand a more rigid and black/white choice of how things operate than what is reality.
Ah, but America’s roots are not as simple as you wish to portray them. Again, as a whole, various flavors of Christianity have been predominant in our history and at its founding. But they were NEVER the ONLY sets of religions practiced here. Yes, various types of Christians made up a fair number of our Founders. But many were also Deists. I’m sure a few were of other faith or no faith at all. You seem to want to ignore that “our roots” were designed in a desire for ALL to have freedom from tyranny and that tyranny includes having a government impose any particular strain of religion on all. I completely disagree that progressives want to depart from our roots. In fact, I hold the opposite view – that they are trying to keep that original intent of separation intact, in order to protect religious freedom for ALL.
Unless you can use specific examples, this is just another glib generalized statement meant to be dismissive and create a straw-man argument. It is a hollow and abstractly meaningless statement in and of itself.
Her entire entry into politics was based on religious motivation, starting with her first office held on a public school board. Her actions, specifically pushing extreme religious positions, such as banning books and mandating school prayer ended up getting her kicked out. Before that, she was one of the pro-life activists showing up at abortion clinics. Her entire political career is pushing her religious positions in politics, whether it is anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, etc. She was the major driver in Minnesota that pushed for the same-sex marriage act. She has never shied away during any of these battles from invoking her personal religious views as justifying her position to push these items into law.
Here are just a few articles for example:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/michele-bachmanns-school-banned-aladdin/37486/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann#Early_political_activism
http://stcroixvalley.kstp.com/news/news/bachmanns-political-career-began-failed-school-board-bid/76989
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/michele-bachmann-edwatch
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/14/michele-bachmanns-unrivaled-extremism-gay-rights-to-religion.html
Full disclosure – the last 2 sources are left-wing perspectives. If you can get past their opinion statements, they do provide significant specific details in their examples.
I’ve given other examples above – book banning, mandatory public school prayer, anti-gay agenda. You choose to focus on abortion here, a topic that as a man, I really don’t feel I have the right to take any strong position over controlling a woman’s body. Personally, I’m against abortion and would never want a woman in my life to make that choice, if she was with my child. However, I cannot impose my personal views onto others nor understand the circumstances that might bring them to such a decision. You try to pull some arbitrary “over 50%” statistic out of thin air to gloss over that this has been a long and complex issue, where there is evidence of a majority position one way or the other, depending on when and how the question is asked. It is not as simple a question as you wish to portray it and overall, positions have remained evenly divided. There is very valid argument about what is a viable “child” as you would put it, and what is merely a blastocyst and collection of cells. The issue itself breaks down into vary different views and positions depending on the circumstances behind the abortion (issues such as rape, incest, minors, etc) and even the timeframe (big difference between first trimester and third trimester…let alone getting to the whole issue of birth control methods). The key point of Roe v. Wade is that has been established law of the land for over 30 years now and although the law has been eroded significantly, it is legal from the government’s perspective. My simple answer to those folks who take a religious perspective against it – if you feel that way than don’t have an abortion. Live by your values but stop trying to impose them on a broader world that doesn’t share your particular religious viewpoints.
I do not think it is proper for us to continue arguing such a complex and controversial topic as abortion here, as that goes so far beyond the context of this blog and the even more tangential 2012 election topic, which Doc has been kind enough to extend to us to discuss. I think it is fairly obvious where you stand on the issue and that “abortion” is an important issue to you and is not as much to me and leave it at that.
Terms such as morality, principles, honor, values, etc. can be broad concepts and although they can have religious inspiration, are not limited to a particular religion’s domain, or even to religion in general. A secular government, such as one defined under our Constitution can adhere to basic and near universal moral principles of freedoms and rights without having to impose any particular religion on it.
I stand by advocating for societal moral norms driven by secular laws and not imposing one particular faith over another. A key part of our laws is that we don’t just have “majority” rule…but we ensure that the rights of the minority are protected as well. There is a huge difference between having rights and freedoms and making someone conform to specific actions. Your rights and freedoms end at the point that they infringe upon the rights of others.
I use the Golden Rule as my personal guideline of how I view these things: “Do Unto Others as You Would Like Them to
Do Unto You”.
The problem I have with candidates such as Bachmann, Perry and Santorum is YES, their very words do seem quite clear to me that they wish to impose their personal religious viewpoints on everyone. I don’t have to listen to any media. When I hear them directly myself, I get the sense of people that wish to turn America into their own personal Theocracy.
I get the sense that this is really your internal position too. From your posts, it seems your personal religious views very much emotionally drive your thinking and that is the impetus for your political perspective on issues.
Answer me honestly – you would be completely happy if the US was a Theocracy imposing the particular religious dogma that you subscribe to, wouldn’t you…?
False equivocation here. The religious candidates are being fairly open in expressing their religious views should be policy. Show my any actual example where Obama’s done that. He hasn’t.
I’ve already addressed the Founding Fathers & religion and morality in my other answers above. So yes, I view that you have a simplistic and revisionist view of history on this issue and that the actual documents do not support your position.
Facts – the only mention that you could even interpret as “God” in any of our founding documents is the reference to “a Creator” in The Declaration of Independence. That is it. No more anywhere else. Nada. Zip. Absolutely NONE in the Constitution. (However, if you want to go to the Confederate Constitution – you can see the difference – where they DID add religion and DID invoke God several times). The very phrase of “Creator” as opposed to using the term “God” is much more generic and very much in line with a Deist take on things. A religious person will interpret Creator to mean their personal view of God. A non-religious person can just as validly interpret Creator to represent whatever laws of nature or natural processes that led to intelligent life existing, etc. It is an intentionally ephemeral term for that explicit purpose.
The only references to religion in The Constitution are those that specifically SEPARATE it from the role of government – no religious tests for holding public office and freedom to worship as one chooses or not to worship at all.
No one is denying the strong role & impact that religion and Christianity in particular has had in our nation’s history. Some of that is good, some of that is bad. The key thing is that there is a lot more than Christianity in play in our nation’s history and founding. There is a big difference between being a nation with a predominant Christian faction since our founding and being a “Christian Nation”.
Our secular government is all about freedom and not “anti-God”. I totally want your rights to worship as you choose (provided they don’t violate clear laws – such as murder, rape, etc.) protected as well as everyone else’s.
The problems I see on the religious right and quite frankly, in the tone of your posts, is that your view comes across to me as a selfish one – you only seem to want YOUR views protected, and everyone else’s views be damned.
I honestly do NOT see any of this “anti-Christian” modern progressive agenda that folks like you always try to proclaim. I do see a legitimate push-back against imposing specific religious views by a generally Christian majority onto everyone in a secular society. Of course there are always examples of extremists and certain militant atheists who use their freedom of speech to advocate for more than that. But those extreme positions are not supported in any political agenda and you don’t see any politicians on the left pushing for that, so that’s another bogeyman straw man argument that folks like you keep trying to push.
Sorry, but the only political powers that I ever see trying to impose any particular religious agenda on our society all seem to come from one side only – the far right. And yes, I do view the statements and actions of certain far right politicians as trying to establish their particular brand of a national religion/domination. I challenge you to provide any real examples of politicians doing that anywhere within the rest of the political spectrum.
Nothing wrong with having a clear voice about your religious beliefs. The difference is if you try to push them into law.
The difference is that one should not use their political office to promote a religious event geared to only a specific religion. That is what Perry did. He pretty much promoted & organized that Prayer event in TX. He was heavily involved in the whole process. As Governor, that is arguably an improper use of his political office. This was not some truly “open” religious event – it was specific to a particular segment of Christianity alone. Most of the invited speakers were controversial preachers from primarily fundamentalist denominations.
It would be different if someone held a religious event & he merely attended in the audience. No, he was front & center as both a promoter & speaker and that was not the proper use of his political office as Governor.
Hey, nothing wrong with the Christian fundamentalists wanting to have a Christian Fundamentalist only Prayer event and open it to the public to merely attend. Nothing wrong with them merely inviting politicians or others to attend and pray. However, it should NOT be a government sanctioned event nor led by government officials or having government representatives speak at it.
Whenever there have been religious events/speakings held at the federal government level, they keep them fairly non-denominational and they seem to be able to do that without problem.
Of the candidates running for the GOP Primary nomination, Perry is one of the most vocal in talking faith on the stump. He’s up there with Bachmann and Santorum in doing so. If you really are going to try to bury your head in the sand and deny that he’s been more and more open about invoking and advocating religious positions in the recent past, then I’ll be happy to source a bunch more links of his own words and statements, but I suspect that your protestations have nothing to do with claiming he isn’t taking those positions and more to do with the fact that you simply support his blend of religion-driven politics and you take issue with anybody else noticing and pointing it out.
What a false equivocation & weak link! Show me anything where Obama has ever espoused views or support for Farrakhan. Never happened.
I agree that too many statements are taken out of context or made out to be a bigger gaffe/deal than they actually are.
In terms of Bachmann’s statements, I think there is a mixed bag of legitimate concerns and just poking fun of silly gaffes. She’s had a lot of questionable statements, so I’ll try to address mainly those that have been brought up so far and briefly offer my opinions on each:
1. Her statement about investigating “anti-American” views a few years ago on Chris Matthews show – A very disturbing and legitimate point of concern, as this shows her mindset of viewing those with views other than her own as somehow either less American, unpatriotic or as the enemy. Statements in this vein from her remind me strongly of McCarthyism and I find them to be extremely troubling and antagonistic.
2. The Elvis death/birthday gaffe – good for pointing out as a tease, but otherwise a harmless and meaningless gaffe (albeit slightly cringe-worthy, as Elvis’ death was very unfortunate and “not pretty” circumstances…and so not the best thing to goof up by bringing up as a thing to celebrate). Bottom line – no actual connection to one’s politics or positions and therefore really a non-issue.
3. The “rise of the Soviet Union” statement – it does seem to reflect quite poorly on both her understanding of history and world politics – more so from using the term “Soviet Union” than anything else. However, I consider this to be fairly minor and I’ll even give her a “pass” for it being a slip of the tongue in terms (provided she claims such instead of her usual behavior of “doubling down on stupid”). Hey, maybe she views Russia as being capable of ascending as some future world threat again… I may not fully agree, but I think that’s a legitimate view she can hold, as long as she doesn’t turn it again into a McCarthy style “commies under the bed” scare. In summary – on its own, I find it relatively harmless as a gaffe…but have concerns that it is part of a broader trend and pattern to some of her worldview beliefs and fear mongering tactics. I’ll reserve further judgment until we see where she goes with these “talking points” as her campaign progresses.
4. The Concord gaffe – Would have been fairly small & meaningless on its own. Looks worse in general, just because of all her Tea Party and “Founding Fathers” rhetoric and with where she was when she said it. In general, outside of a few laughs, I’d simply chalk it up to her not really having that strong knowledge of history as she claims and poor preparation on her & her campaign’s part. However, in the broader context, it paints a disturbing trend of her spouting historical inaccuracies and more importantly – with how she reacts when confronted with gaffes. With this case & most of the others, she never seems to admit a mistake when confronted and instead “doubles down” and comes up with convoluted excuses. To me, it is that doubling down and trend that is the bigger and actual issue of concern here. I see it as a huge flaw for people in leadership positions to be unable to admit and course correct for their mistakes.
5. Her various gaffes on slavery topics which are many (the original “pledge” she signed, which had the shameful reference of marriage/family being better for blacks under slavery, her statements about the Founders & slavery, etc.) – these seem to be a much bigger and more disturbing pattern and problem and not mere gaffes. She truly seems to believe some fictional Pollyanna sanitized view of history and slavery here. I have serious concerns on her views and their implications here.
6. Her doubling down on insisting that John QUINCY Adams was a “Founder” – this could have been a small, harmless gaffe if only she would have handled it properly. All she had to do was say she meant John Adams and not Q. But no, she had to double-down on stupid again. That shows she either is unable to admit fault – a serious problem in a leader, or she has a really warped sense of history. Both are notable flaws in thinking that are valid criticisms of her ability to deserve to hold important office where she has the ability to make decisions on policy that impact an entire nation. Similar with her incorrect statements about the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs.
7. Yes, her view on the not raising the debt ceiling are a serious and flawed problem. That more than anything has already been part of the problem in creating an additional artificial economic crisis. Her position on this issue alone should disqualify her for leading the nation, IMHO.
Joyeagle, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) is an extreme fundamentalist version of Lutheranism. Most American Lutherans, myself included, are part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). We generally consider the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) to be the “right wing” of Lutherans and the WELS to the right of even them.
WELS has distinctive views from majority Lutherans including: all male pastorate, not sharing holy communion with those whose beliefs differ, that the creation story in Genesis is literal history, homosexuality is a sin. Women cannot vote in church where the vote would have authority over a male.
I am sure that there are many fine people in the Wisconsin Synod, but I think membership in that organization marks someone unfit to be President of a pluralist democracy.
I agree with your assessment, but I will always count it special because I was there in the audience when she said it.
Good observations, G. I think politicians should read this passage from C.S. Lewis, perhaps the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th Century:
(From “God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics,” chapter titled “Horrid Red Things”)
“A historian who has based his work on the misreading of a document may afterwards (when his mistake has been exposed) exercise great ingenuity in showing that his account of a certain battle can still be reconciled with what the document records. But the point is that none of these ingenious explanations would ever have come into existence if he had read his documents correctly at the outset. They are therefore really a waste of labor; it would be manlier of him to admit his mistake and begin all over again.”
Palin with her recap of Paul Revere’s ride, to Bachmann’s picking the wrong Concord…. and I haven’t heard of Rick Perry’s admitting that Texas did not come into the Union with the right to secede; has anyone else?
There are fanatics, both religious and anti-religious who are trying to save the word from the other. But neither the left nor the right is defined by its extremes. When either the right or the left wants a bogey man, they pick the extremes from the other side. I hope that folks who don’t already understand this will consider it. The vast majority of Americans both right and left are quite comfortable with religion and no religion living side by side.
Painting progressives as generally anti-religious is believing in the bogey man.
Amen.
The vast majority of Americans, yes. However, when it comes to defining politics, we look at the leadership and those who hold office and who set and mouth the party’s agenda.
From that perspective, sadly, the right pretty much has defined itself by its own extremes for a number of years now… heck, they openly pander to them all the time.
I don’t see that on the left. Oh, the extremes exist there for sure… but they are pretty much quickly and aggressively denounced and sidelined by the rest of the “left” or utterly ignored.
Well, well, speak of the devil, to use a pun of speech. An article about Dominionism and its influence on politics just came out today:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/21/posner_nar_dominionism
And to be fair, here is another current article arguing the opposite:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/21/christian-dominionism-bachmann-and-perry-aren-t-out-for-world-domination.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Fpolitics+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Politics%29
I suspect that Joyeagle subscribes to a POV more in line with this article than the previous one.
The key points I agree within this article is that
A) terminology is used in ways interpreted differently by different people.
B) you cannot group all that call themselves evangelical, conservative, etc. as the same. The reality is not that black & white and there is a lot of variety of positions within those communities.
There are other parts of the article that I think the author downplays – such as turning around and providing a simplistic generalization of the Tea Party as if they are merely focused on “economic issues”… which doesn’t really hold up, as we’ve previously discussed.
I also think the author downplays the push of various members of the religious right to push their doctorinal views onto the broader public sphere.
So, while the author can correctly point out the problems of overgeneralization (mentioned above as points A & B), I feel he abuses that argument as a cover to gloss over and ignore that there are actual individuals within the evangelical community who do push for these things in the public spectrum and THAT is when the problems are rightly pointed out and brought up.
It is a cheap tactic to dismiss criticism of a specific politician’s statements and actions by defensively saying that “not all” people of that faith / perspective think/act that way.
Well, *duh*. But that seems to be the same defensive emotional mindset that we see from joyeagle and others. They hear criticism of a specific individual or specific group of individuals, based on specific actions or statements that person/group made and instead of focusing on that specific event, THEY internally identify with that person/group on some polticial or theological level and then take the criticism personaly and in their own mind, as an attack on *everyone* of similar faith to them… and therefore reflexively leap to defend the individual/group being criticized….
And there are parts of the article where the author tells a blatant falsehood.
This term is seldom if ever misapplied, except by its opponents.
The Constitution does indeed specify that no “law respecting an establishment of religion.” shall be instituted for the purpose of protecting ” the church from the state, and religion from any government interference”.
However to claim that the Constitution did not intend to protect government from religious interference is to ignore entirely Article VI Paragraph 3:
That provision specifically blocks religious interference in Government. Those two provisions, Article VI paragraph 3 and the 1st Amendment, together make up Jefferson’s so-called “wall of separation”.
No politician claiming brownie points for their desire to ‘restore the Constitution’ can justifiably ignore one part of the Constitution while embracing another part. They cannot redact the parts they don’t like.
It is time that these hypocrites and their apologists, like the author of this article, started practicing what they preach.
Good points. I agree.
The majority of anti-abortion violence has been committed in the United States. All those who have terrorized clinics and staff, have cited Christianity as their inspiration. Read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
There is no peace in the Middle East, nor will there ever be, because of American evangelicals.
Evangelicals go to Settler meetings and chant “not one brick.” Evangelicals are anti-semites at their core. They love Israel, but hate Judaism and Jewish culture. They hate, and encourage denial of civil rights, to Arabs – that’s an anti-semite, too.
People like Amos Oz, Abie Nathan and their supporters like me are about 6% of Israel. It used to be the opposite. I got fed up, and walked away.
I was sitting in a MacDonald’s near Chinatown. A woman in her sixties turned to me, and said “Do you know Jesus?”
I replied, “what’s his last name? Maybe I know him from school.” She exclaimed, “you never heard of Jesus Christ?!” I said, “no, I didn’t go to school with anyone by that name. What does he do?” “Jesus died,” she cried.
I replied, “that’s terrible. Was it cancer?” I thought she was going to have a stroke.
OK. That one is easy. Doesn’t help me with the first one though.
Here’s a story on Gawker about Bachmann:
http://gawker.com/5833023/michele-bachmann-says-dumb-things-because-shes-always-talking
My favorite: If you give Michele Bachmann a room full of typewriters, eventually she will say something right.
And this one:
How Michele Bachmann Is Tied to the Ugandan Movement to Execute Gay People
http://gawker.com/5832740/how-michele-bachmann-is-tied-to-the-ugandan-movement-to-execute-gay-people
Does this mean Michele Bachmann is “palling around” with a terrorist?
“Peter Waldron is a Christian pastor and on-the-ground organizer for the Bachmann campaign in Iowa. He is also, as The Atlantic’s Garance Franke-Ruta reported this week, an accused terrorist who spent 37 days in a Ugandan prison after officials there found him with a cache of assault rifles and ammunition in 2006.”
No, you don’t understand. When Bachmann associates with with people like Waldron, it is protecting god and country. “Palling around” with terrorists only applies to liberals.
Here’s an example from Sister Sarah: Joe Vogler, associate of Sarah and her shaygetz Todd, founder of the Alaska Independence Party, was only concerned about Alaska, nothing subversive:
Remains of Alaska Separatist Are Identified: The blue tarp and duct tape in which the remains were wrapped, officials said, matched a description given by a convicted thief, Manfred West, who confessed last summer that he had killed Mr. Vogler in a plastic-explosives sale gone bad and had then buried him.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/15/us/remains-of-alaska-separatist-are-identified.html
That’s only if there’s infinite time, infinite bananas, and infinite Michelle Bachmanns…
I don’t mind the first two, but I can only handle one Michelle Bachmanns…
G,
I don’t know if I’ll ever “catch up” with your response, but thanks for taking the time to thoughtfully respond again. Thanks also for the link to the article by Mr Ross … yes, you are right that he voiced more coherently the overall points I was trying to make.
By the way … I do feel like I’ve more clearly “seen the other side” as you’ve elucidated your opinions. I still don’t agree to a large extent, but I feel like I have more glimpse of insights into where the misunderstandings come from.
I’ll try to get to each point, eventually, but let me state overall here … I still hear a fear of “right wing politicians” wanting to establish religion … set up a theocracy. But without any evidence of that going on. I don’t want to debate abortion here … and the only reason I brought it up is because that is what keeps getting pointed to as the evidence of “forcing their religion on you.” But that is no more an establishment of religion evidence than in the effort to overthrow slavery. There was a huge influence of churches in this hotly debated issue … it was a moral issue and people’s moral foundations were involved. But it was more an issue of life, liberty and justice for all.
Advocating for the life of the unborn is not an establishment of religion by our government.
One other item before I call it quits for tonight–you said in response to Gov Perry’s participation at the Texas Prayer event, “However, it should NOT be a government sanctioned event nor led by government officials or having government representatives speak at it.”
That is a fine opinion, maybe even proper … but not the legal limits of the constitution. If a man/woman wants to run for office and become an elected official, and still wants to be an active voice in their religious public life, then that is fine too. The Texas prayer event WAS NOT a government sanctioned event. It wasn’t led by a partnership of Rick Perry and others … he happens to be the Governor of Texas. Saying Govt representatives should not speak at it may be your opinion, but a govt official speaking at a religious event is not a govt establishment of religion, nor is it out of constitutional bounds. There are many liberal politicians speaking at churches during campaign season … not non-denominational events.
joyeagle, it depends upon why you’re doing it, and establishing a religion. You stating that it’s morally wrong and should be denied in all circumstances is establishing a religion, just as it would be establishing the fact that it’s right to do. Can you state a reason to do it that doesn’t come from your religious beliefs?
My view on Abortion is that it’s wrong, and should be reduced. However, there are things that we need to consider. My view that the best way to reduce abortions is actually raising people out of poverty. Provide the same institutions that allow women to have other choices rather than aborting it. Those are the same institutions that Michelle Bachmann has been advocating to cut for the entirity of her career. There is a strong coorliation between Abortion and Poverty.
However, if we make abortion illegal, are we going to care for these “rights of the denied” after they exit the womb? How are these new people being born into mainly lower-class families going to eat? Are you going to advocate the increasing of welfare, so that we can help these kids and make sure that they don’t just starve to death 3 months afterwords? It seems like Pro-Life only cares about life when it’s on the death bed, or before it exits the womb. Nothing in between that.
What about other circumstances? Do you believe that a woman who is impregenated by a rapist should be forced to carry around her rapist’s baby for the next nine months? Are we going to allow that rapist to have parental rights, and therefore have a hold over that woman for the rest of her life? What about a woman who gets beaten every day of her life? Should she be forced to stay in the marriage, or have constant contact with that person? Often times in situations like that, the child becomes another matter to control the mother.
What about genetic anomalies that are incapatable with life? Do you really believe that having a child born with a disease such as Tay-Sachs, where the child will live a very short life, be in immense pain, and be dead before the age of four. Do you really believe that life is better going through all of that? I can’t for sure.
What about a situation that occurs in pregency, where if the fetus continues, the mother will most likely die? Do you think that the government should be in the position of telling a mother that despite the fact that she will most likely die, she cannot have an abortion because other people believe that it’s wrong?
I’ve never faced one of those situations. And I honsetly don’t know what I would do if I was faced with one. However, if any of those situations come up, do you really believe that the government should make the decision for you, rather than the mother and her doctor. For someone who claims to be a libertarian, you seem to like having the government enforce your paticular morality.
Mr./Ms. Joyeagle:
One problem with the Texas prayer event which Governor Perry attended is that speakers kept calling for the conversion of the Jews. It’s one thing for a Governor or Presdent to go to church, where they might hear messages they do not like. (Except, of course, if the President is Black, he becomes responsible for everything his minister ever said. It’s quite another thing for a public official to go to a prayer rally to launch his campaign to hear such divisiveness. There are Jews in Texas. Start with Neiman-Marcus.
As a Catholic and as a Republican I was offended. I know my church’s stand on this issue is not great.
Anyone who thinks what Governor Perry did is OK needs to review their position on President Obama and Revered Wright. Or on President Kennedy and the Pope. Or whether a Mormon can be President.
Thanks Joyeagle. I too appreciate our dialogue. I think I have a better understanding of your POV after reading Mr. Ross’s article and getting your confirmation below. I’ve already pointed out areas where I disagree with his take on things, but at least it helps me to understand your position.
There is nothing wrong with you & I having different opinions and perspectives on certain matters. If anything, getting to better understand your position (and hopefully you, mine), helps me to be more respectful of your position and views, even if we continue to see things differently. There will always be areas where people can cordially agree to disagree and there is nothing wrong with that. If anything, the beauty of America is that we are a nation of many peoples of many types with different interests, hobbies, beliefs and opinions. I see that as a strength of America and a reason why seeking common ground is important to help move the country forward and improve freedoms and the pursuit of life, liberty, happiness and promote the general welfare for all.
Yes, I do have a fear that some advocacy efforts or desires to instill religious policy into our government moves us away from a society protecting the liberty and rights of all and towards a specific theocratic dominion. You don’t see it that way…but I wonder if that is only because you perceive these particular policies to be inline with your particular religious beliefs, and that is why they seem fine and normal to you. I suspect you would take a different view if the policy avocation came from a religious perspective different from your own – say Islamic or Hindu or Wiccan…or even Catholic. I bet that would concern you and you wouldn’t want government advocacy of such. All I ask is for you to reflect in these discussions and spend some more time trying to put yourself into the position/shoes of other Americans with very different backgrounds and beliefs than your own and see if you can see where concerns and views might reasonably be different from their POV.
I think it is important to establish that request to get to express my main perspective – that America should always be for protecting rights and freedoms for ALL its citizens. Mere criticism is NOT an attack on one’s freedoms. It is the exercise of Free Speech as guaranteed under our 1st Amendment. There is a big difference between that and actual restriction of one’s rights or freedoms to be treated equally and fairly.
That is where I fail to see the connection you are making with your reference to the Civil Rights movement. If you are merely advocating that various religious morals and institutions were supporters of Civil Rights and an important factor in achieving that milestone, then of course I agree with that. …But I’m confused as to why you even brought it up in that way, because I don’t see anyone attacking and claiming otherwise.
Of course, the full history of anything is never that simple or black & white. There are many people and religious leaders who takes inspiration in their faith to do good works and guide their life to help others and try to live up to the wisdom they take from their faith. However, sadly there are lots of people and religious leaders who abuse religion as an excuse to cover for doing bad things to others or carry out selfish or unspeakable acts. You cannot just point out the good faith-based efforts of people in support of Civil Rights without also acknowledging that there were others during that same time period using those same religious texts as their justification for prejudice and intolerance. The full picture of history is always full of examples of both good and bad being done by different people, often under the name of the very same books and religions.
Further, morals are not the exclusive domain of any one religion, or even religion in general. Morals also exist and are very important in the secular world too. From the context of our laws & forms of government, those aspects of freedom and equality are the moral fiber of America as a nation. The success of the Civil Rights movement was a very important one because it furthered the cause of America towards GREATER freedom and equality towards what you aptly pointed out, of life, liberty and justice for all.
As you said, we really shouldn’t be discussing the highly contentious issue of abortion here, but I felt I owed you a follow-up response, since you seem to focus a lot on it and it appears to be an extremely important issue to you. Look, I fully respect that you want to support life and see children brought into this world healthy and safely. I think the problem is that from your POV, in your zeal, you falsely view the government or folks on the other side of the issue as “advocating” abortion (I really don’t know anybody that does that) as opposed to merely wanting to ensure proper health and safety procedures, so that if a woman is going to or has to terminate her pregnancy (lets not even get into the murky bees nest of possible reasons), she doesn’t have to resort to underground and dangerous methods to do so. The other side from you simply sees it as the right for the woman, who’s body is involved, to choose and that making such action illegal or punishable doesn’t stop people from doing it, it merely imposes government restrictions on her rights. Look, I’m very much open and in agreement that there are very few late-term instances in which abortion should be acceptable, as scientifically, you are dealing with something much closer to a viable life at that stage…but I think that is a totally different argument than those who go to the extreme of trying to make the same claims about the situation around or soon after conception. Well, I’m really being pulled off into this tangent just by wanting to give you a response, so I’ll try to stop now and move on.
You make a valid point that Rick Perry did not violate any laws by doing what he did. I agree with you on that. I disagree that a government official doesn’t have a different responsibility when they hold prominent office in terms of being careful of what they do or endorse in their “spare time”, while they hold that office. The Governor is the head of state for the state. Any event they put on and speak on while they hold office takes on the appearance of a sanctioned event, whether they claim it as an official government function or not. That is just the reality of it.
He may legally have the right to do so, but I feel it is in poor form and improper of him to use his celebrity while holding such office to promote and put together such an event.
As I said, I actually would have no problem at all if he merely was attending and praying at such and event. There is a huge difference between merely showing up and speaking at various churches while travelling or campaigning (which most politicians do) and being behind creating a whole religious-specific event.
The difference here is he really was the impetus behind putting this event together, promoting it and prominently speaking on it…all while preparing to launch a presidential campaign. Heck, he called it a national day of prayer. That is as close to making a quasi-official government endorsement as we’ve ever seen. THAT is what really comes across as an intentional and calculated campaign message and push for specific “in your face” advocacy to me and for me, completely crosses an ethical line of proper public officeholder behavior.
Again, take yourself out of your shoes to get perspective on this. Say that a governor happened to be Muslim (as there is no religious test for office in our laws) and that governor put together and promoted a “National Day of Prayer to Allah” that was open to all, as long as you accept Mohammed as the Prophet and of which said governor was a prominent speaker, along with a cadre of mostly controversial fundamentalist muslim clerics speaking…all while that governor was getting ready to launch a Presidential campaign…
…Yeah…I suspect you’d find that to be improper and a bit unsettling.
It would not be illegal, but you as a voter would probably consider such an “in your face” advocacy action to be the kind of ethical judgment call by that candidate to invalidate them as fit to lead the country…as well as unfit to continue to lead a state.
An even bigger problem with that prayer event, and all such prayer events, is that they are not for Americans.
What they are for is for a select group who belong to the “correct” religion.
People of my faith, and in fact people of any non-Judeo-Christian faith, are unwelcome. In many cases where people who are not of the correct faith have asked to be included, we are specifically denied access.
For someone who wishes to lead the country, to participate in an event where you can only get in if you’re the right kind of person, is undemocratic, unAmerican, and not deserving of the office of POTUS.
Well said! I completely agree.
Alabama governor’s remarks on non-Christians raise eyebrows
On the day of his swearing-in, Alabama Republican Gov. Robert J. Bentley raised concern among the state’s non-Christians by declaring that people who had not accepted Jesus Christ were not his brothers and sisters.
Bentley said that “if you’re a Christian and you’re saved … it makes you and me brother and sister”…”Now I will have to say that, if we don’t have the same daddy, we’re not brothers and sisters,” he added, according to the paper. “So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I’m telling you, you’re not my brother and you’re not my sister”
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/19/nation/la-na-alabama-governor-20110119
Hear. Hear.
However, I have decided to convert . . . . to metrics.
LOL!
I have decided to convert to Ramen, and joined the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
All hail his Noodly Appendage!
Really?!? You agree with this? That is where I feel we take 2 steps backwards to any understanding and lessening of the fear factor of each other’s side. Daniel’s statement expresses what the “religious right” fear–the erosion of the rights of freedom of religious expression under the constitution. No one is pursuing to establish a Theocracy … just the original intent of freedom. You see, if you go to the RESPONSE website, read about it, it was a Christian prayer event–not a political event. However, he is suggesting Christians should not be able to meet exclusively in America, that they must surrender their religious beliefs to HIS of a universal/global religion. That is what the “religious right” finds so offensive. To say that a person should not aspire to presidency because they don’t have Daniel’s beliefs in universal religion … that is un-American … and honestly, after having this long discussion with you, I am appalled that you didn’t recognize the incongruity in Daniel’s post to what you have previously espoused.
To answer your previous question, about if a Muslim gov held/participated in a Muslim only prayer event for America … I think that would be great! I really do believe the constitutional freedom of religion … and have no desire to establish a national religion.
So your other question, “Answer me honestly – you would be completely happy if the US was a Theocracy imposing the particular religious dogma that you subscribe to, wouldn’t you…?”
NO … and I’ve never met anyone in the “religious right” who would be happy with that. We want what was established here … not the old religious-led governments we escaped in coming to America. I would be happy if through spiritual influence outside of government, men and women turned to God and lived by him and for him, and that in turn was reflected in our societies culture, laws and influence in the world. And I don’t believe Govt can have much of any impact on that, other than the Freedom of Religion.
Joyeagle – respectfully, you are again leaping to an emotional and defensive reactionary conclusion instead of putting your emotions in check and actually LISTENING to what people are objecting to.
The point is that by holding the officer of Governor and being involved IN putting together, actively promoting and prominently speaking at a religious event that openly pushes only a certain brand of Chrisitianity *is* a defacto government endorsement of those positions.
Particularly when said Governor has been signaling a strong intent to run for President.
As I’ve said repeatedly, if these religious institutions merely came up with and promoted the event on their own and the Governor merely attended it to pray with others instead of pimp it, I would NOT have had a problem with it.
You seem to have difficulty in seeing things from outside your own perspective. You happen to merely “like” the event, because it prescribes to your particular blend of Christianity. You seem to regularly assume that the broader versions of Christianity as a whole are more similar in their beliefs than they actually are. This event was only directed at a very narrow segment of Christiantiy – only certain pretty much fundamentalist viewpoints.
Spiritural influence in culture and personal life I’m fine with. It has no place as a basis for our laws. As I’ve said, you may derive your morals from your faith, but faith is not required as a source for morality or moral behavior.
The whole point of protecting the freedoms of religion is that the entire concept of God and worship are extremely different across people and sects. Even amongst those that worship in the same congregation, one’s individual definitions of God would really be a personal one. Plus, there are many who do not need or require a concept of God as you would view it in their lives. Their freedoms are guaranteed too.
While I respect that you hold certain religious beliefs and would like men & woman to “turn to God” – that is merely you wishing to impose your personal religious views on the world. There are many who have no interest or need to “turn to God” as you view it, and it would be wrong to try to push that on them. You need to respect their rights & freedoms as well.
You are free to hold all the religious revivals and prayer sessions you want. They should simply be lead and run by the particular religious community involved and NOT endorsed by Government.
If you’ve noticed, pretty much the only people who are “fine” with this Governor-endorsed event happen to be those that worship in a manner of that event and that you do. Nearly everyone who has belief systems that differ from the specific message drilled home there had a problem with that event being promoted and pushed the way it was. That should tell you something. Again, you need to learn to try to put yourself in someone else’s shoes and gain perspective.
joyeagle-Suppose a state elected a Governor who was Islamic and he promoted and spoke at a “Rally for Allah” where the idea that everyoone should convert to Islam was front and center. Would you be OK with that? If not, how is that different from the Perry situation?
There you go with that darn logic thing again.
Yeah I might find that a compelling argument if it was billed as “Christians Praying for America” or “Christian Prayer for America” but it’s not, is it?
The fact that it is billed as if Christianity was the default, and no other faith need be considered kind of blows your objection out of the water.
Really? You’ve never met a religious right who claims it’s a “Christian Country”. or that the laws are “Based on the Bible” or “Judeo-Christian principles”, or that “Political Leaders must first acknowledge God” or that we need to “return prayer (again only Christian prayer of course) to our schools”? You’ve never met any of those?
You must not get out much.
And then there’s the whole problem of Christian Dominionists. Not as subtle as the people I’ve already mentioned, at least these members of the Religious Right are honest enough to say what they really want. A theocracy, pure and simple.
I don’t believe in a universal religion. I guess that’s just one more assumption you’re completely wrong about.
Or more appropriately to the situation, a rally billed as “Prayer for America” but that turned out that only Muslim prayers were allowed….